The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Addendum to the SPA SPD: Mitigation Strategy Document for adoption approval Borough Council of Wellingborough – 31st October 2016 st East Northamptonshire Council – 21 November 2016 Please note that no change is being made to the already adopted SPA SPD, this addendum will slot into the end of the document as a new section 6. 1 CONTENTS Section Page 1 Purpose 4 2 Background 4 3 Regulations 5 4 Implications and Contribution to Access Management 5 5 Process 6 6 Payment mechanisms 8 7 Governance 8 8 Conclusions 8 Appendix 1 Map showing 3km zone around SPA 9 Appendix 2 Mitigation Needs Assessment 10 Appendix 3 Compliance with planning obligation tests 22 Appendix 4 S106 Wording 24 Appendix 5 Section 111 template 25 Definitions 26 This addendum (to the Special Protection Area SPD for the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits) applies to the council areas of East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough. These two authority areas in North Northamptonshire have the potential for residential sites to be located within the 3km buffer zone of the SPA, which is detailed further below. 2 1. Purpose 1.1 Local Planning Authorities have the duty as competent authorities under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations) to ensure that planning application decisions comply with the Habitats Regulations. The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 (Local Plan part 1) policy 4 safeguards the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, which was designated in April 2011 under the regulations, due to its number and type of bird species present. If Habitat Regulations are not met and impacts not mitigated then development must not be permitted. 1.2 Evidence produced to inform the production of the Councils’ Local Plan as identified in the Habitats Regulation Assessment for the Joint Core Strategy (JCS)1 and detailed in paragraph 3.40 – 3.42 and policy 4 of the JCS, states that all new residential development within 3km 2 of the SPA will result in a significant effect on the SPA, a map can be found in Appendix 1 showing the 3km buffer. The ‘in- combination’ impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more dwellings within a 3km radius of the SPA are concluded to have an adverse effect on its integrity unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place. This is through an increase in visitors that will in turn increase the level of disturbance to the wintering waterbirds, particularly through dog walking. 1.4 For residential developments which result in a net increase in the number of dwellings within 3km of the SPA it is proposed to avoid and mitigate likely significant effect on the SPA by making a financial contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) and/or other suitable mitigation. This would reduce the adverse impact of people visiting the SPA through specific measures and monitoring. 1.3 This section of the SPD sets out the mitigation costs for residential developments that fall within the 3km catchment. For most development, the contribution to mitigation will remove the adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA. Alternatively applicants can undertake their own project level Appropriate Assessment and fulfil the mitigation that is required through that Assessment. 1.5 Sites that already have planning permission will not be required to pay any additional mitigation sum, unless they are resubmitted for consideration. Due to its size Rushden East will provide its own Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and is therefore not considered to fall in the remit of this mitigation, however if suitable space is not provided within that development, this will need to be reassessed. Other large scale development, that have the scope to deliver SANGs, are unlikely to be required to meet the standard contribution as a bespoke project level HRA will be required and the mitigation identified in that assessment will need to be delivered. 2. Background 2.1 An assessment of need was undertaken to understand the impacts of recreational use in the SPA, this can be found in Appendix 2. This primarily used data collected by Footprint Ecology in their Visitor Access Study of the Nene Valley3 (2014). This demonstrates that the number of dog walkers 1 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1503 2 This definition means any new residential development that includes land within its red line boundary that falls within the 3km buffer and the whole site is expected to pay towards access management as set out in this document. 3 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1437 3 visiting the area is high and that further development will increase pressure at various locations along the SPA. 2.2 The required mitigation includes access management such as screens and fencing as well as directing walkers to less sensitive areas, alongside wardening and monitoring to minimise or address the adverse effects of people visiting the SPA. 2.3 Table 1 and 2 in Appendix 2 demonstrate that wardening and off-lead exercise areas are both necessary for successful mitigation of visitor impacts to the SPA. Both are very high-cost measures: over the life of the Joint Core Strategy. Including them would render new development unviable and would cause it to pay for existing effects on the SPA’s qualifying features. The mitigation strategy has instead included an appropriate but representative proportion of the total measures required. Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) costs have then been apportioned by distributing the costs evenly across the anticipated development within 3km of the SPA within the plan period. 3. Regulations 3.1 The Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contributions are a specific SPA mitigation measure. They are sought for the management of access to the SPA and do not provide wider benefit or represent the provision of infrastructure. These contributions should not be classed as providing infrastructure so can be secured through section 106 obligations without any restriction on pooling of contributions from 5 or more developments (Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations). This approach is consistent with the views of other local authorities across the country in dealing with mitigation requirements for other SPAs and has been accepted by inspectors at appeal. 3.2 The National Planning Practice Guidance4 also confirms that local planning authorities may seek planning contributions for sites of less than 10 dwellings to fund measures with the purpose of facilitating development that would otherwise be unable to proceed because of regulatory or EU Directive requirements. 3.3 The SAMM contribution is a legal obligation to mitigate against effects on a European site. By following the process set out in this SPD it will be quicker and more efficient for applicants than the requirement to undertake a project level Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) for any residential development applications, which may lead to higher mitigation costs. 3.4 Appendix 3 demonstrates compliance with the three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010 as amended) and paragraph 204 of the NPPF. 3.5 Where developments result in the need for specific new infrastructure in addition to the SAMM contribution to mitigate impacts on the SPA, contributions will be negotiated on a case by case basis in dialogue with Natural England and the Local Authority, and will need to meet the relevant regulations. This would include items such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs). Such infrastructure would not be sought from sites of less than 10 dwellings. 4 Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 23b-020-20160519 of the national Planning Practice Guidance 4 4. Implications and Contribution to Access Management 4.1 The contribution figure detailed below was arrived at through the needs assessment work that costed out the required works, mainly screening and fencing alongside the use of a warden to guide and educate dog walkers in the sensitive locations of the Nene Valley. Monitoring is an important part of access management to ensure that the schedule of works are completed in a timely manner, identify any significant changes in access which could require alterations to management works, and investigate how disturbance affects the birds to inform future management. These works are those required over the lifetime of the Joint Core Strategy to 2031. Developments of 9 or fewer 4.2 Any new residential development will have an impact and therefore must be mitigated. The calculated contributions are for each new dwelling to contribute a set figure of £269.44. This will be indexed linked, with a base date of 2016. This will be reviewed periodically. 4.3 Making this contribution will remove the need for developments to undertake project level Appropriate Assessment and speed up the process of approval from Natural England. This would, in turn, speed up the determination of these minor applications. 4.4 An example of specific wording to secure this contribution through a planning obligation can be found in Appendix 4. If following this mechanism of payment then a legal fee will also be required. Alternatively a payment through section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 can be made with no further legal cost, see Appendix 5. Templates and guidance notes can be downloaded from the Council’s website. Developments of 10 or more 4.5 Where a development will create 10 or more net additional dwellings it is advised that early dialogue with Natural England should take place. Natural England will then advise the Local Planning Authority if mitigation may be dealt with through a fixed contribution of £269.44 per dwelling (indexed linked, with a base date of 2016) and/or bespoke mitigation.